Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Tuesday, 25 May 2004) . . Page.. 2169 ..

I would just like to share with members an anecdote. The second last time we debated or discussed things in relation to Gungahlin Drive we had a pitch invasion here by people opposed to the building of the road. A journalist told me a story the next day that he was speaking to people associated with the anti-Gungahlin Drive organisations—and there are probably more than one. It was reported in the paper about the pitch invasion that 40 people were here. And it was quite interesting that one of the movers and shakers in the anti-Gungahlin Drive debate said, “But we don’t have 40 people on our list.”

Let us be frank here. There are a small number of people in a few organisations, possibly 100 or 200 tops—

Mrs Burke: All from Canberra?

MRS DUNNE: Who may not all be from Canberra, who are standing in the way of the rights of the people of Gungahlin, the 25,000 people—the number is growing rapidly all the time—and the rights of other people to have high-quality transport, high-quality roads. And the impact that that will have on the whole economy of Canberra is significant, and it is time it stopped. This is why we are saying today that the legislature take responsibility for this road.

MR WOOD (Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for Arts and Heritage) (12.35): The government will support this amendment. It is an amendment. It was not the first preference that the government set out, but we will support it. There is a background of understanding with this, too, that the road can proceed while it is legal to do that work. I see the nods and that is the understanding on which we are quite comfortable with this amendment.

MS TUCKER (12.36): Yes, the Greens will support this amendment because it is at least addressing, to a small degree, the lack of transparency that exists in the current bill, although, as I have already pointed out, disallowable instruments are quite flawed in so far as having the capacity to stop an actual activity occurring. As members are well aware, that regulation is in force as soon as it is notified by the government.

Mrs Dunne, on one hand, uses very strong language—“draconian”, “fascist” in its application. It is her choice to use that kind of language, but, on the other hand, apparently she is prepared to leave the draconian and fascist forces in charge of a process which is not going to allow scrutiny potentially for six or 12 weeks, depending on when the sitting days are. Obviously much can happen.

Mrs Dunne also wanted to demonise the people who have been exercising their democratic rights in getting access to tribunals and the courts, who have actually had their cases supported and have been given the opportunity for further exploration of their cases, as some kind of evil minority, which I have to say, again—and I have already said it—I think is extremely dangerous and alarming language from any legislator.

I guess that when we have all addressed those hundreds of people at meetings they must have just been walking by at the time and popped in to see what the meeting was about. Maybe they were going to the Lyneham shops to get the milk and thought, “What’s

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .